About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chiu 24, Wiener 14, Campos 9, Us 7, Avalos 6, San Francisco 5, California 5, Farrell 4, Olague 2, Elsbernd 2, Kate Howard 2, Cohen 2, Mar 2, Peef 1, The City 1, Fumgd 1, Pacific 1, John Givenner 1, Chu 1, Kim 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 8, 2012
    4:00 - 4:30am PST  

4:00am
unacceptable to have the level of achievement gap that we have in san francisco. and even though money and resources is not the be-all, end-all it is part of the equation, it is part of the answer. it reality is -- and i say this as someone who worked at the school district for many years -- that there is only so much that the administration, that our teachers can do, that our parents can do, without those resources. and so that's why i think this is important, and this is important now. because i do think that we have a crisis. and the thing about the achievement gap and the low performance of some of these kids is that we also know that the™jpkñ gap becomes. and that, you know, to the extent that you wait six months, you wait a year, however the wait might be, that to have the impact then that you can have
4:01am
today, you probably will end up having to spend more money. and so that's why i believe that the sooner that we can act,ropíq better. so thank you again to everyone who's worked on this. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i just want to clarify the numbers again. in speaking to the controller, so the appropriation again, and i'm sorry if i misspoke earlier, it's $2,255 million so that does leave the sources at the same amount which is 1,412,000 from our school district set aside funds. this is money that we owe the school district. this is their money. so we are giving them the money that is allocated to them. we're just appropriating it and we're asking now for only 843,000 from the state revenue loss reserve fund. i want to respond to a couple of questions brought up about why now. first our semester is beginning in january. so it was important to get this money to the school district so
4:02am
they could begin the programming the first week of school. our juniors are currently entering their spring semester and next year they lo will be seniors inspect we felt it was important to get these programs started the first week the first semester for the juniors. i know we're looking at potentially 30 million in cuts of federal request ration but since june 30th we've put money into our fund that means we have 74 million in our budget stabilization fund on top of the 15 million dollar state reserve loss fund. this was in the memo rereceived this morning from the controller's office. i'm not saying that money should come out of here or there, but@9 i'm saying there's more than the 15 million state reserve fund that we're talking about here. so 15 million state reserve fund, we have 74 million in our budget stabilization fund. it's hard to imagine why an 800,000 ask is that much from the city, to go towards the program that's really going to help our juniors and sophomores
4:03am
graduate on time. of course the budget is always a choice. we're always making choices. and when we choose to fund this, we may not be able to fund another thing. i get that. and we're making a decision now when there might be other asks in the future. for me the answer is simple. i will always choose schools. they are one of my top priorities. even when you look at our prison system for example, just in san francisco county jail alone 75% of inmates didn't graduate from high school. like what can we do to prevent that number from increasing. it's to graduate our kids from high school. this 800,000 is not a lot. it's modest for what we're trying to do. it will help enrichment programs to keep our kids in school. and the other thing i'll say is in regards to our school district, over the last few years, for the first time in over a decade, the school district has actually been
4:04am
reversing the widening achievement gap. and i forget what year it started but since roughly about five years ago the school district has narrowed the the achievement gap every year. and previous to that it had only widened every year meaning the gap between african-american, pacific islander and latino students versus white and asian-american students. now we are finally narrowing that gap so district is on trap, we're doing the work we need to do. this small amount of money will help the school district do the work that it's doing to get our kids to graduate. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i have almpúu question to the s budget office. we have not received a deficit forecast for the next fiscal year. i think that's probably coming soon. can you just give an update on that because there was a reference before to having a better budget picture.
4:05am
so i'd like to get some specifics on that. >> through the chair, supervisor wiener, kate howard, mayor's budget director. you're right, we haven't issued budget directions or -- we haven't projected a deficit. that will be coming next week. i can say that the outlook has improved since last year, but we still will be projecting significant deficits in the first year and in the second year. for a variety of reasons, including things like, you know, the new san francisco general hospital, changes with federal healthcare reform, funding our capital plan, all those sorts of choices. but it will be -- i will be going out with budget going out with budget instructions with significant departments to make reductions. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i ask that question because even though this is a -- in terms of
4:06am
appropriation, even though this is just for this year, i do have a question for whether this will turn into an annual request. and that's not a criticism. one could take the view that we should be supporting this on an annual basis but making clear that it's not like we're going into surplus next year. so, you know, i supported prop h. i supported the rainy day fund. i'm sure i will be supporting the reauthorization of prop h. and i think we all support the city supporting our schools. i do have concerns about the use of the state reserve, and very supportive of using the children's funds -- the set pretty easy one. i have concerns about the reserve particularly for the reasons that supervisor farrell expressed doing this now, when we still have uncertainties on the state and particularly the
4:07am
federal level. and i understand the debate about the rainy day fund. but from my perspective, you know, the voters have passed these various funds, prop h, rainy day fumgd, to provide funding to the school district. some of that money is supposed to be restricted particularly around prop h, but for the rainy day fund the whole point is for problem budget years for the school district to be able to make its choices about how it spends that money. so, you know, i guess if there were no rainy day money, and it was just depleted and there was no way that money was not going to the school district, that would be a conversation to have. but since we quo that there -- know there's more rainy day funding going to the school district than this allocation that we been talking about in terms of the rainy day fund then this requested supplemental, i don't see why we would do a
4:08am
supplemental from the state federal reserve, given the uncertainties around the state and federal government budgets, and the whole point of the rainy day funds being to allow the school district to make choices with that money. i've heard a lot of talk about what different people think the rainy day fund should go for. that's a decision for the school district. it's not restricted. so i do have concerns about the being used. i'm very supportive of the -- money. chu. >> supervisor chu: i wanted to address two points. i think there was a question supervisor campos raised about why now, that it's important, and it's important now. i think we don't disagree on that level. i think that it's important for the school district to have this funding in place so they can implement these programs in the second part of the year. so i don't think that that's
4:09am
really a big debate in my mind. i do think the school district needs this funding now if they're going to implement the credit program so i don't disagree with you there. i think supervisor kim mentioned, and was really advocating that this is a good use of money. i don't think many of us disagree with that either. i think it's important for us to be able to support our youth being able to graduate and allow them to catch up, if they have a desire to catch up and they can catch up and that will help them graduate i think that's a very good thing to do and we should do that. where we fundamentally disagree is the funding and the alternative to what is being proposed. what is being proposed right now is the usage of the p dollars but also the state reserve in order to get to the 2.255 million. what i'm suggesting and what i think many other folks are suggesting is there's actually another way to fund this and can be funded right now, immediately, to help the school district, and that is with the use of p money, with the use of rainy day funds in a way to allow this city to be more flexible with deal with challenges that we will face
4:10am
from the state or federal government. so that's really the breaking point that we have and the disagreement we have. i don't disagree with the importance of now. importance of now. i don't disagree with thelá the objective. i disagree with how we plan to fund it. i think that we should be able to preserve the city's flexibility to deal with some of these big challenges we have coming, and we can still do it with the p money and rainy day that's not something folks may be interested in today but i fundmentally think that is the way to go with this one so that is why i don't support the use knowledge of those funds. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: i want to sprnk supervisor kim for bringing this forward and i appreciate all the work that you've done in front of the scenes and behind the scenes to try and cobble together a package that can be supported at the board of supervisors. we have choices that come up all the time about how we use our revenue and how we find revenue. this is one of those difficult
4:11am
choices that many of us have. but last year, i lookújúwu at he made a choice about how we were going to support business development in the mid-market use general fund support for businesses, in giving a tax exemption for businesses. i didn't support that but i understand it's a choice that we had before us. i feel the choice we make in doing that has actually -- it paved the way for the most highly skilled people to get jobs in our new economy, and the people in san francisco who are long-term residents, are not getting their access to these jobs that are created. we're also seeing an impact on the housing cost, and gentrification, we're seeing businesses in the area that are affected by that. that's a choice that are made, that's implications to that those choice and we are seeing many students are falling behind. i think we have a choice today about how we use our general fund dollars, our state reserve dollars to look at how we can keep a certain part of our
4:12am
scriblth, black and brown kids, from falling behind. and if we're able to make this kind of allocation with our general fund dollars, with our state fund reserve dollars we can help close the achievement gap, we can make sure young people can graduate, can get on to higher education, can get on the way to find a pathway into our growing economy, that right now is falling -- is causing them to fall behind. because we're not providing the kind of safety net or education program and our job placement programs that can really help bring them up. this is a choice we have today. i totally support it and i hope we can actually find the votes to have a veto proof majority in making this go forward. >> president chiu: supervisor >> supervisor olague: -- kim and her staff for all the work on this and i wanted to refer to an article that was in yesterday's paper, and it's kind of an odd title but it was black
4:13am
boy see bleak future at school. it stated one out of four african-american boys in california is convinced he will fail in school, driven in part by poverty and trauma according to results of a legislative inquiry. then they go on to say, the report's findings included broad summaries of how men and boys of color especially african-american and latino males fair in california. race matter. where you live to a large extent determines whether you're exposed to polluteants, good schools, whether you get a good job with livable wage and whether you're likely to go to jail or die relatively young according to the report. i'll close it with -- don't worry i won't read the entire thing but one of the recommendations they mention that currently about 70% of california males under age 25
4:14am
or -- ethnicity other than white, yet too many of those boys of color are failing in schools and are off track to succeed in the workforce. so it's not just something that is specific to san francisco. it's obviously all of california. finally, for example by fourth grade about 60% of black and latino children score below proefficient on reading tests and by eighth grade about one in four are chronically absent. so one of the findings was that we need to change our value system and recognize that investing in the most marginalized youth will yield the greatest economic returns for california. so i think that that's the spirit of what is being proposed today by supervisor kim. so just wanted to mention that i do support it. >> president chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? okay. to be clear, because i know a lot of numbers have been thrown around, supervisor kim has proposed and it's been seconded by supervisor mar that there are two numbers in her ordinance
4:15am
that change. one is the total sources and uses appropriation number, to change that from 2.705 million down to 2.255 million. the second change would be on the state revenue loss reserve number, changing that from 1.293 million down to 843,000. supervisor chu has asked that we divide that amendment. so what i'd like to do is take the first piece of that, the 2.705 number which is being amended down to 2.55 number to take that amendment first. colleagues i'm wondering if we could take that amendment without objection. without objection, that shall be the case. and then on the second half of supervisor kim's amendment, which is to change the state revenue loss reserve number, and reduce it but not eliminate it, if we could take a roll call vote on that amendment. >> point of information.
4:16am
so supervisor kim -- a motion to reduce the state federal reserve amount -- >> president chiu: the state revenue loss reserve number. >> supervisor wiener: right. then supervisor chu has made i thought a motion to amend that. i'm just -- >> president chiu: she hasn't made a motion to amend. she'd like to vote on whether that is the appropriate change. i think the implication from supervisor chu would be the preference would be to change that in a different way. would you like to respond. >> supervisor chu: i'm going to withdraw that. we can take the vote as for the whole amendment reducing the state reserve number because technically the dollar amount was -- so we're reducing it that is better than what it was before. so we'll take a vote on the whole item. >> supervisor wiener: point of order. it might make -- we might be able to do it without objection is all i'm saying. it's just a reduction. >> i wanted to be clear.
4:17am
taking again the second half of that amendment, reducing, and this would be on page 3, line 6, the 1.293 million dollar number down to 843,000, colleagues, can we take that amendment without objection? without objection that shall be the case. on the underlying ordinance as amended, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i'd like to divide the file between the children's money andá xue reserve money to vote on the two separately. and then they would presumably be sent to the mayor separately. >> president chiu: okay. why don't we take first the peef money, special education money. let me ask our controller and deputy city attorney, any issues with moving forward in that way? >> john givenner, deputy city attorney. it sounds like supervisor wiener is asking to dup cate the file so there are two separate
4:18am
ordinances, one with -- one with -- one source of funds and one with another source of p&,ñ correct. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has asked to duplicate the file. one of the amendments would include the rainy day reserve in the place of the state revenue loss reserve and the other would be as supervisor kim has suggested. is that correct? >> supervisor wiener: no. the the motion would be to duplicate the file and then to eliminate the state reserve money from one version of the file, and to remove the peef money from the other version of the file and nothing with respect to the rainy day fund. just voting then on two separate sources. does that make sense? >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has -- >> can i ask a point of clarification. i thought supervisor wiener was suggesting that we divide the question? >> president chiu: i think that's initially what he stated but now you're withdrawing that
4:19am
suggestion. >> supervisor wiener: i'm asking to duplicate the file and send separately to the mayor. it seems the peever money is not controversial and i would want to give money to the school district as quickly as possible so that's my intent. >> do we take a vote on this motion to duplicate then? >> president chiu: as i just discussed with madam clerk, it's not debatable duplicating the file but we need to take a vote on amending the duplicated file. so supervisor wiener has suggested that we amend it in the way he suggests for the version that he's proposing as opposed to the version supervisor kim has proposed. correct? >> and the version that supervisor wiener is proposing is just the 1.4 million out of the peever baseline. >> supervisor wiener: so the -- once the file is duplicated then we would change one version of it so it would just be the beever money and the other version would be just the state reserve money so they
4:20am
would be effectively two separate ordinances. >> i would not like to have one file not include both sources. i would like one of the files to include both sources. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener, at this point, you've duplicatedábrjzt the file as prd by supervisor kim in order for us to consider it as you've proposed it you need to offer a motion to amend that we should consider. >> you can't amend my file. you can only amend yours. >> supervisor wiener: i've two motions to amend. one is to take one version of the file, and remove the state reserve money so it's just peever money and on the other version to remove the peever money so it's just reserve money. we still would vote on both but they would be in separate files, and that's i guess the two motions to amend. >> president chiu: okay. why don't we take those motions as you've proposed them. first of all is there a second to those two motions to amend?
4:21am
seconded by supervisor farrell. discussion, supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i do have two questions through the chair, one to supervisor wiener. i mean why not have a file that actually includes both sources of funding? what would be the problem with having that option? >> supervisor wiener: we could have a third. but then we would potentially be sending duplicates to the mayor because if you have one that has just peef, one that has sait reserve and one that has both if all three go to the mayor i assume the mayor would sort it out but that seems a little odd, whereas if we separate it so each one has one, presumably they both would go to theujp1ñç. >> i think the whole point of a supplemental is to provide something of what is expected to come to the school district. then when you're taking the state reserve out of it, i don't know that you're necessarily doing that.
4:22am
and that's the problem that i have with taking that piece out of an option. but the second question that i have through the chair is to the mayor's office. has the mayor taken a position in terms of these two sources of funding, would the mayor actually approve or not approve either one of them? >> supervisor, through the chair, kate howard. so the mayor's office perspective on this is that the mayor and thetxpj? superintendt asked me and deputy superintendent me young lee to work together to come inwith a plan that would both allow this program to move forward, because it is clearly a priority for the district and for the city, and, ñ the same time, be fiscally responsible. and so our preference is to move forward with the supplemental that would use rainy day and peef baseline funds. and not use any of the state
4:23am
supplemental reserve. none of the options we're talking about includes the rainy day. so would the mayor support or not support any of the three options that we are talking about right now, through the >> supervisor, jason elliott mayor's office, through the chair to supervisor campos. this has been an issue that's been debated and talked about for several weeks now. as the proposal involves fund sources of both and the conversation that budget director howard and deputy superintendent me young lee has been centered around using the rainy day reserve funds which are available, and on using a peef balance which has grown a bit in recent days.
4:24am
so combining those two sources, the rainy day money and peef money does actually total up to the amount requested. so your question to us, as i understand it, is what is the mayor's office preference on funding the supplemental. >> supervisor campos: no. my question would be what would the mayor do if you have these three options presented, where neither option includes the rainy day fund. >> i can tell you the mayor is supportive of using 1.412 from peef, and the balance of your question, supervisor, this is happening in real time, and we of course have a second reading on this ordinance to talk about these things. but i can provide what the mayor does support and what the mayor does believe and would be responsible here and that would be to use the sources totaling 1.412 from peef, and the balance to reach the 2.255 from the rainy day fund. >> supervisor campos: thank you. and i appreciate that.
4:25am
to the extent that there is no formal position on these things, i understand because it's a moving process. i want to get to the sense that we're voting on something, what would happen. i just have to say again, i am going to reiterate my concern on anything that will eventually lead to the rainy day fund being implicated here. and i do worry about, you know, taking out, you know, the reserve out of what's here. because i actually think, in the end, you're talking about giving something to the school district that, in my view, is not necessarily a supplemental, it's actually something that they're arguably entitled to so i would not support that. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i just want to reiterate actually the same thing that supervisor campos said which is i would support the supplemental -- the ordinance going through with the two funding sources that equal the 2.255, i would not support a
4:26am
file that had only one in each of the files, the two sources separately. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: well,given that, again, my goal here was to be able to get the peef money separately to the mayor and get that as quickly as possible in the hands of the school district. if the author of the legislation does not prefer that approach, then what i would do is i would withdraw my motion, and instead ask to divide the question so that it's one file but we vote separately on the peever money and the state reserve money. and again, i don't -- if i were the sponsor of this legislation i probably would want to get the peef money as quickly as possible but i understand the author's perspective. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has withdrawn his initial proposal to duplicate and amend the files and is now proposing that we divide the files. supervisor elsbernd. >> supervisor elsbernd: thank you.
4:27am
i think it's important just to kind of untangle all of this procedural talk and ask the city attorney. so by the sponsor not accepting supervisor wiener's proposal, we can divide. but once we vote it will come as one ordinance. and this board will be rolling the dice on that peef money. if the mayor vetoes the school district gets nothing whereas supervisor wiener is offering the chance at the very least you're getting half but you are gambling on that money that if the mayor vetoes you get nothing. supervisor wiener is giving you the opportunity to assure at least approximately half of this. but by saying no, you get nothing. >> president chiu: any further questions, colleagues? >> supervisor kim: i just want to respond to that. this 1.4 million is a baseline that we give to our public schools. so if this doesn't -- if this gets vetoed this month we will appropriate this money in
4:28am
january to the schools. the school district will get this 1.4 million. there is no reason for us not to give that money to them. so i'm not concerned about this at this point. but we're playing around with this money like it's ours to give or not give. technically, yes, we have to appropriate the funding. that's how we allocate our budget. but this is the public school baseline. i want to reiterate that again. >> president chiu: okay. colleagues, any further discussion? supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: just a question for the city attorney. does the mayor have -- the mayor doesn't have ability to -- line item -- on their project. is that correct? >> president chiu: mr. city attorney -- >> the mayor can sign or veto the piece of legislation. >> president chiu: okay. let's take the the two halfs of the divided question. the first half will be on the peef funding, the public education enrichment fund portion which is 1.412 million amount.
4:29am
roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: that portion of the ordinance is passed. and now on the second part of the question, the 843,000 state revenue loss reserve amount, roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, no. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, no. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)